Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 9:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I found the "annoy" clause a bit beside the point. I don't think we have any constitutional right not to be annoyed by someone. Racial hate speech is a different story, it's an incitement to violence, and that's rarely protected as free speech. A person simply doesn't have a right to go into fora either physically or in cyberspace and shout things that they know damn well could end up with people getting hurt. Free speech doesn't cover it. What he was doing was exactly the same as (falsely) yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I guess I was trying to keep it simple; the terms biz allows them (mods) to act, and we are done with it.

However, thinking more about your line, don't you think the slippery slope biz becomes very difficult to suss out if you take your line, per se? Meaning, we might all agree that certain hate speech MAY cause this or that (your notion of harm).

But why couldn't us agnostics/atheistical sorts say "recent religious postings caused so and so to commit suicide"? Do you follow? Once you open it up that far, it seems drawing the line becomes excessively difficult?

Or am I in left field now?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

No, you're right, it's pretty touchy. I just didn't like the notion that something *wrong* had been done by removing this person. I don't think something wrong was done, I think there was a principle at stake, not just the IA's technical "right" to remove whomever they want (which they can do, of course; bd is right, I think, that there's certainly no law stopping them).

But I agree it can be a slippery slope. In general I like the principle that best the answer to speech one disagrees with is "more speech." In other words, try to educate people rather than punishing them or silencing them. I don't always know where the line should be drawn - but sometimes I do.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

As much as I want to, I can't agree. The concept of free speech is an absolute - it can't be messed with, no matter how distasteful. Otherwise you're on a sliding scale as to what's ok and not. And that usually depends on the folks with power and money. Yelling 'fire' is forbidden because society decided that endangering people with your words is just not ok. But, as much as I dislike it, Mr. Sucks isn't any different than watching white supremecists or the KKK march around spitting out their crap. About what's private or not around here, I'll leave to the lawyers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I think your concerns are legitimate - very good ones in fact - but free speech really hasn't been considered an absolute in any society. There are always restrictions, it's just a question of where you draw the line. I agree it's usually better to allow mostly everything rather than look for things to restrict. I do agree with restricting hate speech. It's good that there are challenges to exactly what makes something hate speech.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Despite what Sarah Palin and those of her ilk may think,
the First Amendment only protects against government infringement of free speech. No state actor, no real issue vis-a-vis First Amendment. Flame away.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Dec 17, 2010 12:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

2nd amendment hijack..and I think the same way on 2nd amendment rights..
Not to bear weapons JUST for sport hunting, target shooting & self defense, but ALSO for self offense, to own weapons deadly enough to fight off any enemy, foreign or domestic. And the following Declaration of Independence defines that >>

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

The above may take BIG firepower, too bad the common people in WW2 Russia & Germany were FIRST disarmed then enslaved. A BAD "Big Brother" will disarm for "common sense" reasons first...gangs, gun accidents, to stop crime - now thats a laugher!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Oh, absolutely - in other contexts, it's just about a principle - an ethical, not a legal question. There's no question the internet archive has every right, legally, to throw the guy off.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Good pt; as RLO notes, we "normal folk" have usurped it as a working hypothesis, and thus are always on slippery slope as DH and RLO also discuss.

Given what Toots noted, though, in principle LMA has gubermint "status", so legally, would this be a pt from which to argue the counter case (ie, no banning, blah, blah, blah)?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hate speech is only an incitement to violence if the offended person decides to react violently. Or they could just choose to ignore it. The decision is entirely within their control on how they react to what is said.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

What? No, that's not what incitement to violence means. It doesn't depend on the actions of the people hearing it. Of course people hearing it can and should decide how to respond, but that's not the determinant of whether it's hate speech. Hate speech has a legal definition (differs in different places, though).